"We have a Marxist President. We have a Supreme Court that has established itself as a secular tribunal. And our Congress makes the dudes hanging out at Starbucks look like Senior Fellows at The Heritage Foundation....

How ironic is it…by the way…that as we speak we are watching one of Alinsky’s rules being applied before our eyes? You know about that one don’t you? It’s “Rule 12” (in some Rule #13);

The target for ‘Alinsky disciple’ Obama is Rush Limbaugh. There’s a reason Rush has been singled out. They’re “personalizing” an industry they don’t like…Talk Radio. An attack on Rush is not only an attack on Talk Radio, but its audience and by extension the entire Conservative movement.

And Barack didn’t come through the Washington beltway deal-making system. He is for real, and he has a cult following.

See, there was only so much Clinton could do. He was the product of good-ol-boy Arkansas politics and he was too obsessed with his own legacy to lead a real movement. It was the same with Gore, Kerry, and the rest of those jokers. They are plenty dangerous and I take them seriously,

Unlike most Washington-types, Obama doesn’t have the patience for gridlock or the slow, parliamentary cold-molasses-going-up-hill legislative pace. You know, all that antiquated B.S. the Founders set up for us.

By that I mean that we are going to have to vigorously defend our elected representatives when one of them steps up and finally crosses that line. When one of them actually says… “communist”.

The media has done a great job of burying that one haven’t they? ...

I don’t subscribe to “conspiracy theories”. I’m not part of the tinfoil hat wearing crowd.... The point is, it’s time to separate the communist agenda from the rest of the junk.

Communism is real. There really is a strategy and they didn’t just go away because the Soviet system collapsed. There really are people who believe in that stuff, and our government is teeming with them right now.

So we have to point it out and defend our ideological spokespeople when they do the same.

Talk Radio is just the opening round in what is certain to be a long fight.

Targets to follow will be the 2nd Amendment, private property rights, due process and, eventually, national sovereignty. I know the left has been chipping away at these institutions for years. This is not something I’ve just suddenly become aware of and now want to impress people with my great insight. Many on the right have been saying this for years, but it bears repeating.

We can’t afford to ‘pick our fights’. Everything has to be a fight. When Conservatives show the fortitude that our Congressional Republicans showed this week by unanimously voting against the “Stimulus” bill, they have to hear from us. It’s not enough to complain when they let us down, they have to know that we’re behind them when they stand up and lead!

Most importantly, we have to be prepared to support nothing less than pure Conservatives in the upcoming primaries. We can’t afford moderates and centrists and “reach across the aisle” types anymore. It doesn’t matter what their names are or how long they’ve been around, they have to go.

If you haven’t read “Rules for Radicals” yet, it’s time to go find a bookstore near some college campus and get a copy. You can return it when you’re done and I’m sure they’ll be glad to have it back. But we owe it to ourselves to become educated about the enemy’s strategy so we will recognize… for some reason I’m thinking of that scene from Patton…

The media will continue to deify Obama while George Soros is obviously running the US financial system straight into the toilet--as he has long said he would.

"Bad Bank is apparently the word of the day, with major market players bandying about opinions and ideas over emerging plans to create institutions in the US and Europe that would soak up toxic assets. Yesterday Senator Dodd said the Obama Administration is mulling a "bad bank" program,...Yesterday after the close CNBC reported that a "bad bank" plan might be announced as soon as next week, under the auspices of FDIC Chairman Bair.

The so-called journalist doesn't mention Senator Lugar's ties to the global warming scam industry. The limp wristed alleged Republican phonies do not care about people. They only care about money now and in the future. That's how politics works. THESE PHONIES HAVE A GAB FEST AFTER SITTING THROUGH MORE AL GORE LIES ON THE TAXPAYERS' BACK. IT WORKED BEFORE, WHY NOT?:

"With the appointment today of a special envoy, we are sending an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy," Clinton said at the announcement.

"Containing climate change will require nothing less than transforming the global economy from a high-carbon to a low-carbon energy base. But done right, this can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and become a driver for economic growth in the 21st century," Stern said after Clinton spoke.

"President Obama and Secretary Clinton have left no doubt that a new day is dawning in the U.S. approach to climate change and clean energy. The time for denial, delay and dispute is over," he continued.

by JR Dieckmann, CFP" "The following letter is being sent to the Republican National Committee along with the California Republican Party by U.S. Mail. If you feel the same way, you are welcome to use this letter, or portions of it, for your own letter of resignation if you wish. Then contact your state Secretary of State’s office to change your voter registration.

They tell us that January 20, 2009 will be an historic occasion in American history. I agree, but not for the reasons they give. It will be the first time in history that a majority of American voters have not only elected a black man to POTUS, but also elected an unqualified, no résumé, unaccomplished, radical left, and likely illegal alien, without ever demanding personal history, educational records, health records, military records, or proof of citizenship from this man. He is an absolute zero on qualifications for POTUS.

We expect this from Democrats, but we also expect that the Republican Party would have made an issue of these shortcomings and the lack of qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama. We expected that the Republican party would have made an effort to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to see that our laws are followed. The Republican party shares the responsibility for this abomination in their negligence and refusal to stand up and fight for our Constitution and conservative values.

You and your Democrat-Lite candidate, John McCain, did neither and allowed this illegitimate candidate to usurp the office of the president. McCain’s campaign was pitiful and failed to bring up even the most basic issues of the Obama candidacy. Issues not only of his citizenship, but his dark associations with radicals (other than Bill Ayres, which was a non starter), his empathy with Islamics, his complete lack of understanding of the Constitution, the free marketplace, American history other than black separatist history, and the principles of freedom and liberty on which our country was founded.

You have not only betrayed all Republicans who have supported you over the years, but betrayed our country and - along with the Supreme Court - have allowed this trashing of our Constitution to continue with unconstitutional spending of taxpayers’ money, and by not demanding a genuine birth certificate from Barack Hussein Obama. I wish the best for Obama, but only if he resigns from this masquerade and chooses another line of work. I can never call him president unless he can prove that he is an American citizen and was born in America.

Not only have you failed to insist that Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution be respected and followed, you offered us, as the only alternative to Obama, John McCain who had virtually no chance of ever winning the support of conservative Republicans. Make no mistake, it was the RNC that forced his candidacy upon us.

You may say “but the voters selected him from the primary candidates.” In fact, he won the nomination only by default. Your obscene voting rules allowing for crossover primary voting by Democrats in many states, early voting in liberal states, and your “big tent” policy of encouraging liberals and moderates into the Republican party who do not share conservative values, simply to grow the party regardless of political ideology, is the reason for McCain’s win in primary voting. He was never the choice of conservative voters or a majority of the party. He was what was left after liberal Republicans refused to support conservative candidates. Your “big tent” is now filled with Democrats."...

Sunday, January 18, 2009

""According to one gratifying myth recently circulating in the blogosphere, the key difference between Democratic and Republican voters is their recorded level of intelligence. This is an odd argument to advance from the vantage point of the historic party of the poor and educationally deprived, you might think. But then, when it comes to arguments about presumed levels of intelligence, factual veracity and logical consistency often play a minor role."

(Voters forget they were not allowed to see one school record, grade for Obama. Nothing).

"This attitude, no doubt, is why so many people have vested such extravagant hopes in America's soon-to-be-inaugurated 44th president. He's awfully clever, we're told, and wildly articulate.

The shimmering image of Obama we see in the media at the moment is not the man himself but, rather, a dim reflection of the commentators' grandiose self-image, adorned with the obscure glamour of a year-round suntan.

As we might expect, then, (New Yorker political columnist) Hertzberg is presently the complete, teared-up and weeping Obamaniac. He has "followed the Obama phenomenon with the tracks of my tears", Hertzberg tells us in a post-election reverie on The New Yorker website. Indeed, in all his years he's "never been as emotionally invested in the fortunes of a politician as I've been in Obama's" - not even the Robert Kennedy of the fabled year 1968, with his "young, handsome, intense" looks and his "poetical-tragical-romantic story of personal transformation".

Yet Obama is definitively not a culture warrior. In his The Audacity of Hope, he recalled of the 2000 and 2004 elections that he "sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation played out on the national stage". And he expressed nostalgia for the old-world civility of those senior members of Congress who took him under their wings in his freshman years."...

"A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups.

A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth.

Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition.

A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers’ unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

presumes a right inherent to the individual and the nation. Liberals routinely reject both individual and national rights in favor of group and class rights. Liberals are also biased against acts of rational self-interest,

Oppressive violence is a function of class privilege, where revolutionary violence is a form of revolutionary justice. So that in the liberal calculus, the middle class homeowner protecting his house from a mob, is practicing “oppressive violence”,

(Liberals naturally make exceptions for themselves, as progressives are self-defined as revolutionary, therefore liberal violence is never oppressive to liberals within the same degree of ideology, only potentially to liberals further on the left.

Which is why liberals stood behind Clinton’s ruthless campaign against Yugoslavia, while those further on the left protested against it. Revolutionary purity defines the right to revolutionary violence. Or by contrast why few liberals were willing to oppose Stalin. The further left you go, the greater your right to carry out revolutionary violence.)

Similarly Communists in the Czarist period, including Jewish Communists, were willing to support Pogroms against Jewish communities, as a form of revolutionary violence… even when the mobs carrying out the violence had nothing in mind beyond anti-semitism and looting, and the pogroms themselves were actually promoted by the Czarist government ; because they believed that opening the door to any peasant violence served to pave the way for an overthrow of the Czarist government. And Tolstoy, one of the architects of modern pacifism, who had a great deal to say about the evils of violence, was unwilling to condemn the pogroms.

That kind of cynicism is a hallmark of the liberal approach toward violence.

So too, liberals held rallies agitating against war with Nazi Germany…

Only when Hitler attacked the USSR, did the tide of opinion on the liberal side suddenly sweep to a pro-war sentiment.

Accomplishing the same kind of transformation with Islamic terrorism has however become extremely difficult, because there is no state today that represents an extreme left wing ideal in the way that Lenin and Stalin’s Russia did. (Cuba is the closest thing to it.) However were such a state to exist, and were Muslim terrorists to attack it, we would see a lot more Christopher Hitchens’ and Nick Cohens’ around.

Today liberals see Muslim terrorism, in much the way they once saw Nazis or the pogroms or race riots--

The core must be to remember that the right of self-defense is the foundation of individual and national rights for a Republic.

By contrast for liberals, grievance based violence opens the door to a progressive tyranny, as it did during the French revolution or the fall of the Czars and the following interregnum, or as they still believe it will today."

Thursday, January 15, 2009

HE IS A POLITICIAN WHO HAS ALREADY SHOWN CONTEMPT FOR AMERICANS MANY TIMES OVER. IF THAT DOESN'T MATTER TO YOU,

AT LEAST PICK YOUR HEROES FROM AMONG MEN WHO HAVE BUILT OR CREATED SOMETHING GREAT. NOT A MAN WHO WAS GIVEN THE BEST OF EVERYTHING, HUNG AROUND THE CHICAGO MACHINE AND BECAME A MILLIONAIRE WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE MOST CORRUPT HUMAN BEINGS IN THE WORLD.

AS GEORGE BUSH AND ALL THE REST, OBAMA IS WHERE HE IS BECAUSE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY AND WISHES.THE DIFFERENCE IS, THE MEDIA HAS SOLD YOU ON OBAMA BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR INTEREST TO DO SO.

Coleman was the leader in the Senate when it came to scrutinizing the operations of the United Nations; he appeared frequently in the media. The United Nations had never before come under such public criticism in the Senate. The mandarins and their fellow travelers were made very uncomfortable by the work of Senator Coleman. They do not forget their adversaries.

This scandal involved not just negligence of the UN officials that set up and monitored the program (which immeasurably helped keep Saddam Hussein in power and, in a sense, helped create the conditions for the invasion of Iraq), but also involved

Brown had no experience in the hedge fund world, but such sinecures are generously passed out by billionaires wanting friends that might reach high places -- they are an investment (see Axis of Soros in the Wall Street Journal's archives).

Mark Malloch Brown, who had previously worked at the World Bank, had been in the running to succeed Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank. That would be yet another friend in a high place --

who invests billions of dollars in the type of lesser-developed nations on which the World Bank focuses. David Asman of Fox News called Mark Malloch Brown George Soros's "Ace in the Hole" at the World Bank when it appeared that Brown was vying for the top job at the Bank. Asman noted that

That's like seeing the other poker player's cards before you place your bet.

Where does one go for that kind of information? There are a lot of "clubs" within which powerful people met to discuss such things. Some are formal institutions, like the Council on Foreign Relations, or other such think tanks. But some meetings are far less formal, such as a luncheon at

Compared to any international commercial bank, the World Bank's portfolio is miniscule. But there is practically no country on the planet that has not had some dealing with the World Bank. Central bank officers, those with

inside information about whether and by how much a currency might be revalued, are constantly visiting with World Bank officers....

The election results were, at best, inconclusive. The details of the post-election contest between Coleman and Franken are complex but have been well-covered by Scott Johnson at Powerline, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News. The important point to take away from the dispute in the context of this article is that

the fight is now between the lawyers; these contests are expensive, and the funds Franken has at his disposal from Soros and others have been crucial.

Perhaps, Soros was looking backward and wanted to "punish" Coleman for his tarnishing of the reputation of Brown. More likely is that

Photo via Wall St. Folly via NY Post..........."What benefits to the US this alliance (with Israel) brings is a mystery. Even prominent American Jews like George Soros are asking why the US is so supportive of Israel when it gets nothing but grief in return."